ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
An Evaluation of the Public-Private Partnership in the
Lekgalameetse Nature Reserve in South Africa
Christopher Modise Mashale
University of Limpopo, Tufloop Graduate School of Leadership, Edupark, Fauna Park,
PO Box 759, Polokwane 0787, Republic of South Africa
Theresa Moyo
University of Limpopo, Tufloop Graduate School of Leadership, Edupark, Fauna Park,
PO Box 759, Polokwane 0787, Republic of South Africa
Oliver Mtapuri
University of Limpopo, Tufloop Graduate School of Leadership, Edupark, Fauna Park,
PO Box 759, Polokwane 0787, Republic of South Africa
Emai: simbaomtapuri@yahoo.com
Doi:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p855
Abstract
In recent years Public Private Partnerships (PPP) in protected areas are becoming more popular as ways to generate income
and alleviate poverty. This article examines the partnership in terms of design, implementation and sustainability of a Public
Private Partnership (PPPs) project meant to develop the local community in a nature reserve. This study is qualitative and
quantitative in nature, and used face to face interviews and a questionnaire to collect data. A thematic approach was used to
analyse the interview transcripts while the questionnaire was subjected to appropriate statistical methods. The article argues
that although the partnership was based on a mutual agreement, the benefits to the community were much less than expected.
The limited success of the project is largely attributable to the unequal power relations in the partnership, coupled with capacity
limitations in terms of governance and management of resources. The article concludes that a rethinking of the design of PPPs
in the context of nature reserves is necessary by emphasizing the importance of the integration into PPPs, of strategies which
empower communities to participate as equal partners and which also enhances their governance and management skills for
co-management of nature reserves. The major contribution of this article is a model of public private partnership which
espouses the following principles: symmetric power relations; learning and re-learning; inclusion; community capacity
enhancing; exercise of community power; collective participation and control; collective benefits and community self
management.
Keywords: Sustainable partnerships, protected areas, community development, poverty alleviation
1. Introduction
The Republic of South Africa is endowed with a diverse and rich biodiversity which has a great potential for economic
growth and sustainable development. South Africa is rated number three in the world in terms of its biodiversity following
Indonesia and Brazil (UNESCO, 1996). In order to achieve environmentally sustainable development, protected areas
have been designated as a priority area for development of the domestic and international tourism industry.
Apartheid created a country with different levels of socio-economic dimensions created by policies which led to the
dispossession of the majority of people from their lands for agricultural and conservation reasons. Since 1994, the South
African government has pursued a development path designed to achieve social and economic transformation of the
economy. Transformation aims to stimulate the economy in order to create means to improve the quality of life of all
citizens and by so doing, to redress the fundamental challenges of gross inequalities in society created by apartheid. As
such, Government promulgated policies which attempt to also improve the social and economic conditions of
communities that are adjacent to nature reserves.
A major challenge in the country is that in most cases, nature reserves have been established without due
consideration for communities adjacent to them. Such an approach has tended to marginalize instead of improving the
855
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
livelihoods of local communities and reducing poverty. These reserves have not benefited them even though private
tourist operations have profited significantly. This has created some tension between the locals and conservation
agencies which affects the success of the protected area. Kepe et. al (2005) contend that addressing the immediate and
long term needs of the poor, while at the same time conserving the environment is not an easy task. They explain that it
requires commitment and compromise from all stakeholders where necessary. Armitage, Berkers and Doubleday
(2007:4) share a similar perspective when they point out that although technical expertise is important in policy decisions
regarding partnerships on natural resources, increasingly, their success depends more on negotiation and agreement
among the key stakeholders who consist of government, communities and the private sector.
The state plays a major role in protecting the biodiversity of the country, promoting economic growth and
sustainable development, and in implementing poverty reduction programmes that are in line with community
development. The National Environmental Management Protected Areas Act (NEM: PAA) calls for the sustainable use of
protected areas for the benefit of the local people should be promoted (South Africa 2003). It mandates the government
together with its national and provincial tourism and conservation agencies to promote both biodiversity conservation and
rural development. In the case of Lekgalameetse Nature Reserve, the Public Private Partnership was established
precisely to pursue such developmental goals. Wolmer and Ashley 2003:34-39 reinforce this idea when they argue that it
is the responsibility of the state to create maximum benefits for communities next to nature reserves, especially in cases
where they have rights over land and where the state controls competitive sites as this creates hope for improving rural
livelihoods.
2. Background
Partnerships are defined in different ways in the literature. They are seen as a kind of relationship, joint management,
collaboration between parties. Bramwell and Lane (2000) define a partnership as regular, cross-sectoral interaction over
an extended period of time between parties, based on at least some agreed rules or norms, intended to address a
common issue or to achieve a specific policy goal(s), which cannot be solved by the partners individually and involving
pooling and sharing of appreciations or resources, mutual influence, accountability, commitment, participation, trust and
respect and transparency. Despite the variety of terms used, the core elements of a partnership are that it involves a
relationship among stakeholders, where some kind of pooling of resources, time and energy occurs to achieve similar
goals (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; Gray, 1985; Selin & Chavez, 1995).
Partnerships exist at different levels and take different forms, but they have in common the expectation that the
participants can achieve their objectives more effectively and efficiently through strategic alliances with others rather than
acting independently. This ‘collaborative advantage’ (Huxham and Vangen, 2000) is attained by pooling complementary
resources and sharing risks and rewards in the joint undertaking (Warner and Sullivan, 2004). Collaboration with a wide
range of stakeholders can facilitate a move towards sustainable tourism (Bramwell & Lane, 2000; de Lacy, Battig, Moore,
& Noakes, 2002).
The current land debate in South Africa has implicated existing private companies as claims are made on some
parts of their land. The apartheid system in South Africa created a situation in protected areas were often strictly fenced
off, with little or no positive interaction between protected areas and adjacent communities. Adjacent communities were
restricted from gathering customary resources such as traditional food, firewood for fuel/energy and medicinal plants as it
was considered to be illegal. Communities had an opportunity to claim their land in terms of the Restitution of Land Rights
Act (No 22 of 1994 as amended) in which most of the protected areas were affected. The act provides for the restitution
of land rights to communities which were dispossessed after 1913 as a result of discriminatory laws that were executed
without compensation.
Successive democratic governments believed that co-management in a form of partnerships should be the
preferred option in terms of land claims. The People and Parks programme prioritized land restitution in protected areas
as its main focus, which culminates in co-management, access and benefits sharing including community-public-privatepartnership (PPP) models. These models are aimed at balancing the objective of biodiversity conservation with increased
local economic development and poverty alleviation. Wolmer and Ashley (2003:37) are of the view that the right of
participation in protected area management will increase with ownership. With the current heated land debates in South
Africa, it is in most cases difficult to balance the interest of communities and conservation agencies when land is set
aside for conservation (de Villiers 2008). The models of community-based or pro-poor tourism being promoted as
development options have very limited, and very mixed pedigree and it remains to be seen whether they can deliver the
anticipated benefits. ‘If they fail to succeed on sufficient scale, or if the benefits are not widely distributed within
communities, the pressure for direct access to land for subsistence that drove many of these claims in the first place is
856
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
likely to resurface (Lahiff2002:20).
Carruthers (2007:296–297) argues that protected areas are widely viewed as cash cows for economic
development and service delivery, rather than biodiversity protection or ecosystem services luxuries. As a result, there
have been cases of conflicts often resulting in destruction of environmental resources. Over and above the incentives
faced by particular organisations to participate, the proliferation of partnerships can be interpreted as part of a broader
shift in governance, or the process of giving ‘direction to society’ (Rhodes, 1997) through the interplay between
government, business and civil society. Partnerships can sometimes be seen as a new model of governance, referred to
as ‘new’, ‘collaborative’ or ‘network’ governance, among other terms (Moon, 2002; Donahue, 2004; Ruggie, 2002).
The private and public institutions realised the need to forge close relationships with communities adjacent to their
projects in protected areas by involving them in conservation activities to allow the benefits to flow to the communities.
Ojwang, (1999) acknowledges that through integrating the local communities into these projects, private and public
institutions are fulfilling a social responsibility of creating development opportunities for the impoverished rural
communities adjacent to their projects and thus view their contract partnership with the communities as a tool for rural
development.
The government views partnerships as a mechanism for facilitating the social and economic empowerment of rural
communities. The government of South Africa acknowledges that in addition to other sectors, the conservation industry
has a significant role to play in rural development (DEAT, 1996). The industry considers the government's role as that of
creating an enabling environment for the development of the sector in a way that is equitable and sustainable. Benner et
al, ( 2004) argue that partnerships are being established as a response to gaps in traditional governance models,
especially with regard to the limited – and some argue declining – ability of states to devise and implement rules or to
provide public goods in the increasingly global and complex interactions between social, economic and environmental
systems.
3. Literature Review
There are a number of partnership formations or methods that can be used in protected areas or nature reserves,
depending on the level and kind of venture and the benefits thereof. In this study we are only going to concentrate on one
model of partnerships which is common in protected areas in the Southern African region, which is co-management. Comanagement is occasionally referred to as participatory, collaborative or joint management (Berkes and Henley 1997:29;
Kepe 2008:314).
There are many definitions of the term ‘co- management’ but it is commonly regarded as a middle-range
management option between state and community management (Isaacs and Mohamed 2000) which suggests and
encourages participatory democracy, power sharing, local incentives for local use of natural resources, and
decentralisation of resource management decisions (Kepe 2008). Greater participation by resource users and
landowners in management activities and the integration of local values and knowledge in decision-making processes are
recognised as necessary and beneficial (Berkes and Henley 1997:31; Hauck and Sowman 2005:2). In the year 2007, the
Department of Land Affairs and Department of Environmental Affairs and Tourism signed a Memorandum of Agreement
(MoA) which led to the cooperative national approach to the resolution of land claims in protected areas (South Africa
2007). The use of the co-management method was considered the best strategy in the MoA to reconcile land restitution
in protected areas (Kepe 2008:312).
The dawn of a new democracy country in 1994 led to a number of new policies and laws for natural resource
management influence by international debates and trends which supported the principles of equity, social justice,
participation, environmental sustainability, accountability and transparency (Hauck and Sowman 2005). Co-management
is described in Section 42 of NEM (South Africa 2003).
Normally, the right of participation in protected area management increases with land ownership (BorriniFeyerabend et al 2000:24; Turner et al 2002:3). The management capacity of the landowners also determines the level of
participation. Landowners also have to choose how much they can/want to invest in co-management, and thus how much
risk they are willing to take. According to Berkes (1997:6), co-management is feasible only if at least four conditions are
met. These are the presence of appropriate institutions, trust between partners, legal protection of local rights, and
economic incentives for local people. Due to land restitution, land ownership in protected areas in South Africa often
changes from state land to private land and therefore this feature needs to be taken into consideration, as it influences
the resource and land rights.
In South Africa cooperative co-management is promoted as the preferred settlement option within the land
restitution process in protected areas. A recent example is the joint conservation management initiative of the Makuleke
857
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
region of the Kruger National Park by the government and the community. Private investors are expected to join the
partnership for further development of the area. The community now owns the land after a highly successful claim from
the Kruger National Park through negotiations (Koch and Massyn, 1999).
Isaacs and Mohamed (2000:2) are of the view that ‘The ability to move beyond the limitations of either state,
private or community management is seen as a key benefit of co-management’. Increasingly, co-management is seen as
an alternative to resource management that joins the interests of government (to achieve efficiency and sustainability)
with those of landowners and resource users (who have concerns for self-governance, active participation and a variety
of livelihood issues) (Hauck and Sowman 2005). In this case, co-management was being implemented.
4. Methodology
This article used essentially a qualitative approach. Such an approach was deemed appropriate in order to gain insight
into the partnership agreements and relationships. Face to face interviews with a number of villagers and other key
stakeholders were undertaken. A qualitative method relying on in-depth interviews provides a way of collecting
information on the knowledge, values, opinions, attitudes and experience of the target group (Neuman 2000). This allows
participants to speak about their experiences in their own terms and words. As it is common, qualitative approaches are
relevant (Wilson & Little, 2005), this means relying on rich, thick descriptions and quotes from the interview scripts
(Hollinshead, 2007).
In-depth interviews were used and interview sessions were arranged with respondents concerned. The researcher
also used questionnaires to collect data on the impact of the public private partnership, the benefits as well as
developmental issues of concern. The sample was selected using purposive sampling. Preference was given to key
informants, that is, participants actively involved in the partnership and people who were part of the community
partnership forum. A sample of 40 people was selected comprising people from reserve management, the Limpopo
Tourism Agency (LTA), Limpopo Department of Economic Development Environment and Tourism (LEDET), community
leaders, thirty community members and two co-management members. Of particular importance was the reserve
management which has insight into the daily activities which were taking place between the reserve and the surrounding
communities; the Limpopo Tourism Agency and LEDET managers are responsible for facilitating the partnership, while
the co-management members represent the communities concerned regarding management issues of the nature reserve
and the community members as key stakeholders.
In-depth interviews were used to obtain information from interviewees, namely LTA, LEDET and Trust committee
members. According to Kumar (2005), “one of the main advantages of a structured interview is that it provides uniform
information, which assures the comparability of data”. Self-administered questionnaires with questions that allowed
community members to fully express themselves and give detailed information were used and distributed to them during
community meetings which are held on monthly basis in their respective villages with their chiefs. Texts, views,
expressions and opinions were analysed using content analysis as it is one of the most appropriate methods under the
circumstances for qualitative data. Each interview was coded soon after transcription. An emergent, interpretive approach
was adopted to provide a framework for transcript analysis and theme development (Neumann, 2000; Strauss & Corbin,
1998).
5. Results and Discussion
According to the interpretive analysis of the stakeholder interviews, three key themes emerged which defined the nature
and quality of the partnership between the government and communities adjacent to the LNR. The themes relate to; (a)
partnership development and management, (b) stakeholder benefits, and (c) sustainability.
The land claim was lodged in 1996 and was facilitated by government departments headed by the regional land
commissioner. The communities were encouraged to claim their land for compensation and benefits attached to the land
claim. The intention for the land claim was for restitution, because the land is declared a protected area making physical
occupation of the land was impossible. According to members of the co-management, the management is still struggling
to be serviced in terms of agricultural activities as part of the land is for agricultural purposes. Members of the comanagement expressed the view that they experienced many challenges during the process of lodging a claim but
received the support of the land commissioners. In compliance with the National Co-management Framework, they meet
quarterly to discuss issues affecting the LNR and also said that the partnership is gaining momentum and that they
understood the challenges much better. However, there was a sense that there is a lack of coherence between land
ownership and biodiversity management as there was evidence of some confusion on the expectation of the communities
858
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
and frustration on the part of the management agency of the nature reserve on what each should do. According to the
LNR Strategic Plan (2013-2018), there is evidence that the management agency of the nature reserve and the
communities agreed on erecting a new fence to manage livestock and poaching from taking place in the nature reserve.
This suggests that stakeholder consultation and support is an important aspect of effective protected area management
as misunderstanding can easily scuttle the project. It is also a requirement in terms of Sections 39(3) and 41(2)(e) of the
National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act, 2003 (Act No. 57 of 2003).
A majority of the respondents agree that they were involved in the partnership from the onset. This implies that
there was meaningful participation from the beginning of the PPP. While job opportunities in the community were mostly
offered by commercial farming ventures comprising both temporary and permanent employment, migration to urban
areas for employment purposes was widespread due to limited opportunities in the area manifesting in a high
unemployment rate. Respondents complained that their objectives centred on employment creation, opportunities for
firewood collection and grazing of their livestock more than anything which were largely being unmet. Therefore, the
expectation was that the partnership should impact livelihoods in terms of job creation and spaces for grazing and
firewood collection. The limited number of people who were benefiting from the partnership were those who, essentially,
were indirectly employed which meant that their future was not guaranteed as they depended on occasional work which
is provided by the nature reserve.
The interview data sourced from members of the LNR Co-management committee provided an understanding of
whether there were benefits accruing to the community and issues of sustainability and impacts. It emerged that many
community members were being employed in land care programmes such as Working for Water and Expanded Public
Works Programme (EPWP). This was an indication that these programmes have the capacity to employ about 70 people
on seasonal basis in the nature reserve. The committee members were also of the view that more can be done in terms
of effectively involving the communities in equity partnership and concessions opportunities. However, the partnership
has not created adequate jobs to cater for the adjacent communities as community members were not given preference
regarding permanent employment and huge development projects/tenders in the nature reserve.
Additional information gathered from the respondents suggests that LNR through its co-management committee,
conducts annual assessments on beneficiation and sustenance of the partnership in relations to the socio-economic
impact in the adjacent communities. It was stated that the management authority is not effectively implementing decisions
that are taken in the co-management meetings suggesting that there is tension in the management processes of the
project.
Further analysis, based on the data collected and general comments made by respondents, it can be adduced that
the majority of the surrounding community members, in general, welcomed the partnership process and have confirmed
that this partnership has the potential to bring about change in terms of how they look at conservation and management
of a protected area.
Evidence shows that a larger number of the participants in this partnership is adults and pensioners as compared
to the youth. This may work against efforts to build this community because for sustainable community development to
take place, all the stakeholders in the community must be involved especially the youth for them to be able to sustain the
legacy. A number of community leaders, who were involved in the partnership formation, spoke of the partnership
formation process as “frustrating”, “complex” and “time-intensive”. Such that some of the community members lost
interest in the partnership before the implementation process was concluded. Some of the claimants “say they were not
involved in the partnership in the initial stages due to the fact that they are replacing family representatives who are no
longer available due to ill health or have passed on”.
The management agency also said that most of the community members do not understand the implications of
managing a protected area and the legislation involved in creating such a partnership.
While the process of preparing and lodging of land claims was exhausting, the claimant’s spoke of the helpfulness
of the Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs, and the Land Commission in assisting with information and
the process of how to lodge claims. “The Land Commission were of great support and help in terms of information and
guidance we needed when lodging a claim for our land” (Claimant”). Justifiably, claiming of a protected area must
conform to the National Environmental Management of Protected Areas Act. Ironically, the act restricts claimants from
physical occupation of the land as most claimants were of the view of using the land for physical occupation, farming and
grazing. The formation of the partnership was drastically delayed due to lack of knowledge and desperation of farming
and grazing land.
As such, the respondents were of the view that government is biased resulting in their wishes being sidelined. For
instance, they claimed that the nature reserve should create more employment opportunities, increase allowance for
firewood collection, and grant them permits which would allow their livestock to graze in the protected area. The
859
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
communities and the management agencies came to the common understanding that a land claim of a protected area is
not like any other land claim were claimants can decide what to do with the land after a claim is successful. Hence, the
partnership was formed and gave the adjacent communities an opportunity to become stakeholders in the development
and management of the LNR.
The day-to-day management of these engagements created new challenges for stakeholders, particularly
regarding issues related to employment and access to resources in the LNR. The majority of the respondents were
unemployed and with little influence on the employment of community members. In some cases, adjacent communities
felt that they should be given preference when it comes to tendering and employment opportunities. Their frustration is
encapsulated in the following excerpt: “LNR management hires outsiders even though it is manual job that can be
performed by people residing in the surrounding communities” (Claimant).
There were cases where LNR gave tenders to the local people. This meant nothing to local people as they claimed
that the big contracts are given to outsiders. One respondent said “from a business point of view it is useless to give a
contract to an outsider who comes with his own people to work in our nature reserve, whilst we have people who are
capable to do the job for less”.
Some respondents were generally satisfied with the partnership and credited it for its role in local economic
development. However, the employment figure shows that the majority of the society in the adjacent communities is
economically inactive. Theyr believe that there is a very strong correlation between the PPP and their economic growth
which can be achieved with resources sharing and additional income accruing in form of contracts.
The evidence also indicated a strong link between partnership development, and governance (management) and
sustainability of socio-economic and environmental issues of the nature reserve. The effectiveness of the LNR
partnership is still questionable because the governance and benefits issues of the nature reserve are not clearly
articulated and understood by all stakeholders especially from representatives of the management agency and the
community by their own admission.
From the data that is available, there is proof that the partnership was developed and implemented in a
professional and harmonious way. However, the community representatives in the co-management team are of the view
that what is agreed upon in their meetings is not implemented by the representatives of the management agency (LTA
and LEDET).
Members of LTA and LEDET management considered the partnership to have succeeded in improving
management of the protected area. Admittedly, the relationship between the management of the nature reserve and the
community has improved and the Community Property Association is of the same sentiments with regard to the
management of the nature reserve.
The fact that the land claim process went well and that the management agency for the nature reserve and the
claimants formed a co-management agreement is important. This meant that the community is ready and willing to work
with government to continue protecting the natural resource in that area. Both the management agency (LTA/LEDET) and
the community representatives must work very hard to make sure that challenges that are experienced are ironed out.
6. Towards a Model of Partnership in Protected Conservation Areas
Given the situation in the LNR, we posit a model for Private Public Partnership which supports:
• Symmetric relations – because co-management assumes two or more stakeholders, the power relations
should be level to ensure genuine engagement for the common good;
• Learning and re-learning – there are lessons to be learned from the engagements. This means that
stakeholders must be willing to learn and re-learn in order not to commit mistakes previously encountered;
• Inclusion – the engagements must be inclusive of the adults, the youth; the community and implementing
partners and so forth, without alienating any other party;
• Community capacity enhancing – the engagement should enhance the community’s capacity to lead and
manage themselves and their projects;
• Exercise of community power – in their collective, communities must exercise power through their structures
which give precedence to their needs and priorities;
• Collective participation and control – control must reside in communities to encourage participation of
community members as the resources belong to all.
• Collective benefits – benefits must accrue to the largest number in the community and as such eliticism should
be discouraged.
860
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
•
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
Community self management – is elaborated in Table 1 below. It shows the advantages and disadvantages of
co-management arrangements versus community self management.
Table 1: Co-management and community self management
Co-Management
Give instructions to communities
Creates community subservience
Disempowers communities
Can cause social and cultural conflicts over jobs and
resources
Creates its own level of bureaucracy
Encourages eliticism
Community Self Management
Communities self rule and govern which raises their self awareness
Community are in control of their destiny and projects
Empowers communities
Conflicts over jobs between locals and outsiders are avoided. This does not mean
that conflicts within will be eliminated.
A layer of bureaucracy is removed in self governance.
Eliticism may be avoided depending on how the arrangements are configured.
Source: Authors
In cases of community self management, there is potential for communities to be independent both economically and
financially through the exercise of community power in decision making. Community self management also facilitates
collective management of community resources through nurturing leadership which avoids the exploitation of locals and
encouraging community entrepreneurship. The assumption of control and ownership by communities enhances their selfesteem and sovereignty. However, some of the disadvantages of community self management and ownership include the
removal of the incentive to work as an individual and creation of dependency.
7. Conclusions and Recommendations
In line with the findings, Brawell and Lane (2000) are of the view that collaboration with a wide range of stakeholders can
facilitate a move towards sustainable tourism. The partnership that is created in the LNR and other protected areas that
are under land claims, should be able to address the socio-economic issues of all stakeholders and move beyond the
thinking of land owners and management agencies. However, it is important to acknowledge that communities will always
have higher expectations when ever partnership of this nature is formed especially due to their social and economic
background and historicity associated with land ownership in South Africa. While the management agency must continue
with their legislative mandate of the protection of biodiversity that is found in the LNR without compromise it should be
inclusive in its decision making processes, involve the communities in the design and implementation of economic
programs beneficial to them and understand the needs of the local community in terms of culture and traditions. As such
It is imperative for the management agency to fast-track the issue of involving private partners for developmental
purposes as the process to bid for the development of the economic hubs within the precinct of the nature reserve is long
overdue.
The settlement and co-management agreements, together with the management plan, should be able to provide
the framework for coordinated and proper management. This will avoid unnecessary tension between stakeholders. The
management agency should implement a capacity building initiative on co-management, tourism and conservation. The
management agency is an equal co-management partner with the claimants and therefore should not intervene in the
internal business of the land claimants and vice versa.
References
Armitage, D., Berkes, F & Doubleday, N. 2007. Introduction: Moving beyond co-management, In D. Armitage, F. Berkes and N.
Doubleday. Adaptive co-management: Collaboration, learning and multi-level governance. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Benner, T., Reinicke, W.H. & Martin Witte, J. 2004. Multisectoral Networks in Global Governance: Towards a Pluralistic System of
Accountability, Government and Opposition, 39( 2): 191–210.
Borrini-Feyerabend, G., Farvar, MT., Nguinguiri, JC., & Ndangang, V. 2000. Co-management of natural resources: Organising,
negotiating and learning-by-doing. GTZand IUCN. Heidelberg: Kasparek Verlag.
Bramwell, B., & Lane, B. 2000. Tourism collaboration and partnerships: Politics, practice and sustainability. Clevedon: Channel View
Publications.
Bryman, A. 2001. Social Research Methods, Oxford University, New York.
Carruthers, J. 2007. South Africa: A world in one country: Land restitution in national parks and protected areas. Conservation and
Society, 5(3):292–306.
861
ISSN 2039-2117 (online)
ISSN 2039-9340 (print)
Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences
MCSER Publishing, Rome-Italy
Vol 5 No 20
September 2014
DEAT, 2004. People and Parks workshop: Conservation for the people with the people 25 -27 October 2004, Swadini Forever Resort,
Blyde River Canyon, Mpumalanga.
DEAT, 2006. People and Parks conference: Conservation for the people with the people 29-31 October 2006. Beaufort-West, Western
Cape.
Donahue, J.D. 2004. On Collaborative Governance. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
De Lacy, T., Battig, M., Moore, S., & Noakes, S. 2002. Public private partnerships for sustainable tourism. Gold Coast: CRC for
Sustainable Tourism.
Gray, B. 1996. Cross-sectoral partners: Collaborative alliances among business, government and communities. In Huxham, C. (Ed.),
Creating collaborative advantage. London: Sage. 57-79.
Hauck, M. & Sowman, M. 2005. Guidelines for implementing coastal and fisheries co-management in South Africa: subsistence fishing
co-management and capacity building programme. Rondebosch: University of Cape Town.
Huxham, C. & Vangen, S. 2003. Enacting Leadership for Collaborative Advantage: Dilemmas of Ideology and Pragmatism in the
Activities of Partnership Managers’, British Journal of Management, 14: 61-76.
Kepe, T. 2008. Land claims and co-management of protected areas in South Africa: Exploring the challenges. Environmental
management, 41:311–321
Koch, E & John Massyn, P. 1999. Challenging Eden: From Rhetoric to Action in Community Public Private Partnerships. Cape Town:
Oxford University Press.
Lahiff, E. 2002. Land reform in South Africa: an overview, with particular reference to protected areas. Programme for Land and Agrarian
Studies. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape.
Ojwang, A. 1999. The Socio-Economic Impacts of Contract Timber Farming on Rural Women: A Study of Small Scale Growers in
KwaZulu-Natal. Unpublished MA Thesis,University of the Witwatersrand.
Ruggie, J.G. 2002. The Theory and Practice of Learning Networks: Corporate Social Responsibility and the Global Compact, Journal of
Corporate Citizenship, 5: 27–36.
Selin, S., & Chavez, D. 1995. Developing a collaborative model for environmental planning and management. Environmental
Management, 19(2), 189–195.
Turner, S., S. Collins & B. Baumgart, 2002. Community based natural resources management: experience and lessons linking
communities to sustainable resources use in different social, economic and ecological conditions in South Africa. Programme for
Land and Agrarian Studies Research Report No 11. Cape Town: University of the Western Cape.
UNESCO MAB, 1996. Biosphere reserve: the Seville strategy and the statutory framework of the world network. Paris: UNESCO MAB.
Wolmer, W. & Ashley, C. 2003. Part II: Resources and Policies. 3. Wild resources management in southern Africa: Participation,
partnerships, eco regions and redistribution. IDS Bulletin 34(3).
Legislation
South Africa (Republic). 1996. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
South Africa. 2003. National Environmental Management: Protected Areas Act no 57 of2003. Pretoria: Government Printer.
South Africa. 2007. Memorandum of agreement between the Minister of Agriculture and Land Affairs and the Minister of Environmental
Affairs and Tourism. Pretoria: Government Printers.
862